Euryon.9248

I eventually got everything -- without doing anything differently -- but it took multiple tries. Either it's buggy or dropped randomly, not sure which.

Great well I wil be quitting and it's not because I'm a bandwagoner or because I care about my server coming in 1st at the end of the week. If I feel this way, trust me others do too. Trust me, the number of people who are excited to be coming back to wvw because of the proposed changes will absolutely overwhelm the tantrum-throwing, foot-stamping few who refuse to give it a chance and claim apocalypse now for wvw. Your mind is so closed that there's no point in even discussing this further.

Yes you do, plenty of people complain about that, including a current thread where someone requested to get GoE entirely through a wvw reward track. I say the same thing here that I said there : to earn a leg, you have to do at least some of every game mode. Keep the 3 mode-oriented gifts as they are. If I had to suffer through hours and hours of PvP (which I hate), you can handle the Gift of Battle, and wvw-specialists can handle GoE. If we only had to do game content we thoroughly enjoyed to get a leg, they'd be a dime a dozen and not worthy of the name. Post a link to that thread, since that would be a first instead of someone using it as a rebuttal to all the whiners wanting GoB without doing the Required content.https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/36856/reward-tracks-are-still-dull#latest Item #2, requesting to get GoE via reward tracks because he hates PvE.

What's good for BG is not what's good for the wvw community as a whole. What's good for elitists from BG who refuse to play with "less skilled" players and refuse to join an alliance is definitely not what's good for the wvw community as a whole, and if those few people choose to stop playing altogether then it's hardly going to hurt the game. You can't stamp your feet and talk about how a change is bad for you and expect Anet to alter their plans on that basis.

NO.They already made it so you no longer have to go into WvW for map completion. Anything more and they may was well revamp the entire game.I don't want to have to go and do map complete in PvE only. They should just give away the gift of exploration because I dont like PvE I don't want to farm for gold either. Lets just make all materials free. Cause I find farming boring. Lets just dumb down the game so everyone can just have everything with no effort. Cause that's basically what you're asking for.Reward with no effort Actually, they removed map comp from wvw because pvers used to flood the maps and not participate in wvw stuff... That aside, GoB is pretty easy to get, I agree Actually they moved it because pvers cried and cried and cried about it.There was more to it than that. It was literally impossible to get wvw map completion if you were stuck in a certain situation in wvw. At least every other item to get a legendary is possible through individual time and effort. But wvw map completion requires that your server actually own or take every part of wvw at some point. I was on ET back when ET/FC/SF were grouped forever, and SF always dominated and always owned their home keep in EB. The POI and vista in the green EB home keep were literally the only things keeping me from a leg for several months, and there was absolutely nothing I could do to get those items due to my server's position (other than pay a fee to transfer, which is not fair to make as a requirement for a leg and I wouldn't have done anyway). I could have done wvw 24/7 and never gotten those items. At one point many months later we ended up against GoM in green, and they very generously agreed to let ET take their EB keep just so the many of us who needed those items for WC could get them (I of course missed this window and had to wait 2 more months, but it was still a great gesture). It wasn't just "crying" about it, it was because it was the only leg item that you couldn't get at all by individual effort and time.

Yes you do, plenty of people complain about that, including a current thread where someone requested to get GoE entirely through a wvw reward track. I say the same thing here that I said there : to earn a leg, you have to do at least some of every game mode. Keep the 3 mode-oriented gifts as they are. If I had to suffer through hours and hours of PvP (which I hate), you can handle the Gift of Battle, and wvw-specialists can handle GoE. If we only had to do game content we thoroughly enjoyed to get a leg, they'd be a dime a dozen and not worthy of the name.

That way no one is forcing anyone to play WvW or make the change WvW centered.No one is or ever will "force" someone to play WvW, nor will the change in worlds force someone who doesn't want to wvw suddenly have to start playing wvw. That statement makes no sense to me. The change is wvw centered, as it should be. The only effect it will have on non-wvwers is that they will need a new mechanic for grouping RP'ers with other RP'ers when the load into PvE maps. Outside of that, this change has nothing to do with either PvP or PvE. I really don't understand your issue with the multiple guild structure. I like that we can have multiple guilds and I don't care what other MMOs do or do not allow. I like being able to see callouts in one guild for a Spirit Vale run while another guild is talking about SMC and a third is looking for T4 fractal buddies. That gives me options and makes my gaming experience richer. Forcing me to choose only one of those guilds to participate in would be a negative, not a positive.

i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casualthen again, what mind did you change? I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here. @Warrior.5347 said: i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casualthen again, what mind did you change? I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here. EOS peeps used to have people questioning about multi guild system and how it will affect social cohesiveness. But your question is about multi guild in same servers. I don't see the point. Firstly, the game isn't about just WvW. No my statement includes across multiple servers too. Its not all about WvW you are right, but the conundrum of using multi guild, multi server as earth shatteting reasons not to switch seems selfish and the system itself seems to have made some people complacent. In all it seems to be a choice of dead game mode losing WvW players or a new way of life with a revived game mode that we can and will all adapt to.I'm not really understanding this. Different guilds have different foci. I have friends that wvw and only wvw. I want to run wvw with them. But I also want to do PvE with other friends, and maybe raid or do fractals with guilds focused on those things. I'm not "diluted" nor is my "culture" somehow contaminated because I choose to have multiple interests and multiple guilds focused on those various interests. The only instance I can really see is the one of having multiple wvw guilds across multiple servers, which I will agree seems silly and somewhat contradictory.

i think that able to join multi guilds in the first place is casualthen again, what mind did you change? I'm here to get my mind changed, not to change minds. It sounds rather unintuitive and spoiled from all the complaints here.Let's see, someone could be in a bank guild, a guild for personal friends, a wvw guild, a raid guild, and a general PVE guild. All legitimate guilds with different foci, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's not about the wvw, it's about the role servers currently play with landing RPers on the same world in (mostly) PvE maps. Currently servers are a primary factor in picking which instance of a given map you load into in PvE, and RPers want to load into the same world if possible for obvious reasons. NA RPers to now have generally chosen TC for that purpose. Removing servers has an effect on them that has nothing to do with wvw but instead with how they are assigned to maps in PvE. Without a server to group them into the same map, the question becomes what will be used to replace that function. That's what the devs have to figure out before this can go live for wvw, even though it has very little to do with wvw itself.

Everyone used to be on the same boat for the foreseeable future. It's easy to plan long term this way. You care and maintain your boat because it is your boat for the foreseeable future - the people on this boat have become your friends and you rely on them and they rely on you - you make each other better because you know you're all stuck on this boat forever.However, with alliances you're on a boat that is rigged to explode after 8 weeks with a bunch of strangers.Do you care about maintaining and repairing a boat you know is going to blow up in 8 weeks?YesDo you care about a bunch of strangers that might be trying to kill you in the subsequent 8 week season?YesNo alliance is going to want to help any other alliance because after each reshuffle, the alliance you helped get better might now be your enemy.Alliances will only care about themselves.Speak for yourself, I will care about and help anyone in my world that isn't a troll, regardless of whether they are in my alliance or not, even if I may end up fighting them in 8 weeks. You speak only for yourself. Your selfish attitude does not speak for the majority of wvw players. Static, unchanging, permanent servers IS the problem with unbalanced matchups.

It's like 90% a sure thing. As much work they are putting into it.. no doubt it will be active soon. I think if that was the case it would be front and center, but after not posting on this thread for a bit I had to dig to even find this announcement. I can't believe no one in charge has realized what a disastrous change this stands to be; carrying a big risk of losing players and deterring future players... for little potential reward(and frankly I think the problems it may cause stand to outweigh the benefits even if it works exactly as they're hoping, which with MMOs is seldom how it goes). If I could get a response from a more official source over whether this change is certain to come to pass or not would be appreciated, as it will influence whether I'll be playing this over another MMO that has their priorities straight.Hyperbole much? Precisely how is this going to be a "disastrous change"?

You should see the one from NSP now - I heard a few people saying that one of the guys hacking on DB transferred there. The funniest thing is they ported into Ogre earlier today and all of them got wiped by an ac near our oil. They just stood in lords.Edit: this might also mean that the people following the hacker were probably also newbies and didn't know any better. It was also probably one of the hackers that had a tag. If you see this again, get an id on the guy and pass it on. We don't want hackers screwing with the game.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. I agree with all of this and this is why I don't expect the change to solve anything.Out of NA hours players really need to spread themselves out, even if its only into 3 servers so Anet can match those servers. They won't though. It's quite one thing to say you want fights and another to put your money where your mouth is :/Even if they can't perfectly spread out off-hours coverage (which I suspect they won't), the worlds with higher off-hours coverage will still only exist for a season. The following season, it will be a different world with different players who see their off-hours better covered. Right now the same people (those on BG, SoS, etc) are the ones who continue to reap the benefits of having better coverage. With the new system, different people will finally get to experience that feeling of not waking up and seeing all your T3 keeps and towers flipped overnight.

Of course they are going to tell us. I don't think that was the question, I think (correct me if I am wrong) Roxanne was asking at what point before each season would we be notified which world we as individuals would be assigned to. I'm not sure they will notify us ahead of time, any more than they told us who was going to be in each matchup prior to reset during the Glicko days.

I really get tired of posts that amount to "people gamed/stacked servers before, this will just be more of the same". Do you really understand how this will work? Nothing you said in your statement directly indicates how people are going to accomplish the same thing again, other than asserting that "history will repeat itself". How are we going to get the same scenario when you can at most lock in 20-25% of a single world's population? The entire problem with the current system is that the unit of permanence -- the server -- is the same as the unit used for matchups -- the world. In the new system those 2 things are decoupled, so there is no permanent stacking of a world.

I'm not silencing you. If you want to claim "freedom of speech", you should have no issues with my freedom of response. I'm telling people why your post is meaningless and why it becomes spam by repasting it. Alliance stacking cannot produce the same result like server stacking could. Teams will be reformed every 8 weeks, which resets the bandwagons that WvW has become notorious for. That is the reality of what will happen. I think the length of seasons should be lowered to 6 weeks, not 8 weeks. The irony is that he's inadvertently posting evidence of why the current system sucks and why it needs a change to something that cannot be stacked to the extent servers are stacked now.

How are you coming to this conclusion? Who is "showing you the door out"? You and your friends in small guilds can just as easily form alliances and continue playing just as you are now. If the 'elite alliance' that ends up on your world this season ends up being a bunch of toxic douchebags, well, you only have to ignore them for 8 weeks at most. No one can stop you from playing with your friends in small guilds just as you are doing now. In fact, it will be easier to get more of your friends on the same team since you can join the same alliance rather than potentially have people on separate servers until paying to transfer. So what if some elite alliance doesn't want you? Why would you want to be in the same alliance as people who don't want to be with you? This is a reset where you can choose your friends and playmates more thoroughly (and cheaply) than you can do currently.

It is not the team balance that is causing the biggest WvW issues. It is the class imbalances. After this change, there will be no more excuses that 'X server has more coverage'. Everyone will point to the class imbalances more than they already do. This is just another band-aid. Another hood-wink to divert the players attention from the real problem. The profession/skill balance is important for enjoyment of the game play, diversity, and freedom to choose your playstyle. However every team is free to force their players to play the FOTM profession and be on an equal footing. There's nothing a team can do solve coverage imbalance. With true coverage balance the matchup/season victory can have meaningful rewards. Something that makes players try to win instead of bragging on the best KD ratio. I am not saying the server imbalance is not an issue, it is. However, you cannot grow a tree by just pruning the leaves, you have to have strong roots. And this patch is not addressing the underlying root of the issues in WvW. At the end of the day, you can paint a trash bag pink, change the plastic to satin and call it lingerie, but it still holdstrash. I fear you folks thinking this is a miracle WvW saving patch is in for a massive disappointment.There are multiple issues in wvw. This is addressing one of the most fundamental problems. It will not fix everything. I doubt any rational person expects that it will. One thing at a time.

The first problem comes down to time played. If one alliance can get 500 dedicated players who all play 40 hours a week (which seems probable), than that one alliance will have 20000 hours of playtime a week. Organized, meta build, voice comm, playtime. It is going to be really hard to come up with two more worlds with alliances that will also be on equal footing. Anet will match them with two more worlds that have a similar total playtime, but those three worlds are NOT going to be equal. I imagine that two worlds will be able to create that level of organized coverage and playtime. I am very dubious of this. A single alliance stacking the 500 most dedicated players, to the exclusion of all others (including the less dedicated friends of those 500), and which no other alliance can come close to matching? I am very skeptical that this will happen. Further, even if this kind of thing somehow does shake out, the world on which this alliance is placed is going to be bolstered mostly by the least dedicated randoms and other casual/low-playtime alliances to balance them out, while the lion's share of dedicated players not in this hypothetical stacked alliance is funneled to other worlds. I do agree about the BLs, though. Either randomly assign each world to a BL each matchup, regardless of where they finished previously, or give the winning worlds the red BL and the losing worlds the green one. In a sense that's what's happening now (the previous week's winners have red in the next higher tier while losers have green), but Tiers 1 and 4 are skewed because you can't move up/down, so the top T1 server maintains green and the bottom T4 server maintains red.

Once again, we are at impasse due to our preferences. One of us prioritizes the notion of building a community to be proud of, and then staying in it and fighting for it, the other values innovation and new experiences more (or whatever causes you to embrace the suggested change). Both preferences are completely valid. I think this is the crux of the matter, although you didn't mention the primary motive for those advocating the new system, which is getting rid of the imbalance created by people entrenched permanently on a dominant server. By removing the "permanent" unit from that of an entire world (server) to that of only a fraction of an entire world (alliance), Anet is looking to removing the disproportionate share of elite/hardcore players on just one or a couple of permanent worlds, and spreading those people to multiple alliances which will be matched up against each other instead of being permanently able to roflstomp almost every other world. For many of us returning competitive balance to a game -- and games should be about healthy competition -- is far more important than maintaining permanent entire-world-sized "communities", especially when any given player will still be able to stay in a community of 500-1000 people. I seriously doubt there are that many people on any current server who can even name individually more than 499 people who are more than semi-familiar names in a chat and whom they frequently actively play with in wvw.

I wholeheartedly agree, as long as the the poll includes 3 options instead of just a yes/no. The poll on this forum with the 78% support has 5 options, the standard (strongly agree/agree/neutral/disagree/strongly disagree) you see on many surveys and evaluations, and the verbiage for each option is reasonably neutral. The strongly agree + agree is running at 75%+ versus the other 3 combined.

and youre kitten right bg will complain. why? because they have every right to. everything ever that happened in wvw is always somehow bg's fault. wanna hear a secret? bg isnt as stacked as you think it is. Tell me again when was the last time BG lost a matchup and dropped to T2? Is there any way any server currently in T4 or maybe even T3 would have even a remote chance of winning a matchup with BG if BG wasn't flat-out tanking? Try to see the population imbalance from the bottom or middle instead of just the top. It is a huge problem.

Players make guilds, guilds make alliances I get that. That wasn't the question. How about this then. Players make guilds with a limit of players per guild.Guilds make alliances with a limit of guilds per alliance and a limit of players per alliance.Players and guilds and alliances make worlds, with a limit on alliances per world and a limit of play hours compared to other worlds. Still not an answer to my question. Will an alliance be allowed to functionally accept individual players not in a guild.Lol why should individual players even be needed? Just join one of the guilds in the alliance. Thats how an alliance accept a new player. If there are no more guild slots, you dont want to join one of the guilds or no one want you in their guild then why the hell should you be in the alliance? Functionally, you are correct. I haven't seen the answer though. Whether we can see why it would be desired or not, there are some who would want this option. The question is whether it is an option nor not. Not whether it SHOULD BE or not. Alright I can tell you it's not an option. I am 100% certain of that because alliances does not contain players. They contain guilds, which in turn contain the players. Alliances are for administering the guilds. Guilds are for administering the players. Thus, players join guilds, not alliances. I am sure Anet can correct me if wrong (fairly sure they wont say anything though no matter the case :p). If alliances contain individual players the system would actually break since you set one guild as WvW. Being in an alliance outside the guild would be impossible, as it could be on another world than the guild you have have set as WvW - which in turn could be part of another alliance, which has players in other guilds which are part of other alliances. Not currently being in an guild doesnt remove the possibility of being part of one. It'd be a meltdown. You are very likely correct. The only reason I asked is in the diagram they posted back on page one, listed individuals on worlds. Along with guilds and along with alliances. So, if you did not flag one of your guilds as a WvW guild, could you enter an alliance. Wouldn't create the guild conflict, but it's probability just assumed based on the design that you can't.i think the answer is probably no, as guilds, not individuals, appear to be the components of an alliance. As noted, it could cause issues if individuals were allowed to join an alliance directly, and then after they were in one, checked that box on the guild panel that sets that guild as their wvw guild, when said guild is in a different alliance than the one they individually joined. I suspect this is not something that they plan to allow.

Either you: A) Set the 400 man guild as your WvW guild as is. Everyone will be on the same world, even if people that stopped playing 5 years ago log back on. It's gonna be free to join guild mates (duh, since no one leaves) B) Trim the fat and create your own alliance. That way you can still be part of a large group if you want to invite several other guilds, while not taking up 400 slots. I am guessing that there will be some extra slots to make sure guilds have some wriggle room (like, if you have a 210 man guild you take up 250 slots). Gonna be free for anyone joining the guild (after the 8 week MMR is over, max 8 weeks wait min 1 week or whatever it is) C) Leave the guild and make a considerably smaller new WvW guild and join an alliance or roam freely like A). Like B), anyone wanting to join you for free even after the restructure is in place and 8 weeks has started, just join this guild. It only gonna cost if you are so impatient you need to join right now today in 1 minute. Which as I have said before Anet knows people are but still that's how I understand it will work. Edit: Point "B" didnt quite work out as intended but kitten it, that works too. A: Only those who set their WvW-guild will end up on the same server and it's quite unlikely that people who never (rarely) played WvW will actually set one just in case. B: We do have a separate guild for our more active WvW-players, but this doesn't help those in the main guild that want to start WvW. C: What I mean by accessibility is exactly that you don't have to tell people something like: "Great that you want to play WvW, see you in 8 weeks."By that time people likely will have lost interest. As I see it these people will have little weight in the balancing algorithm anyway and their placement will be rather arbitrary in that regard, so why make it unnecessarily hard for them?If people loose interest over 8 weeks then what's even the point of arguing? They wont bother playing WvW with you anyway. Also why are you worrying about people not setting their WvW guild due to inactivity? The matchup obviously doesnt matter to them anyway. Either they dont care about where or with who they play or what, they left in 2013 and come in back in 2018 going "omg what is this 8 weeks I cant wait for that long I quit kitten game!"? The question was, is there free transfer. The answer was yes with a delay. Instant would cost. Nothing is made unnecessarily hard on anyone. Well, unless Anet want to introduce a gem cost to joining a guild. Which would be truly evil. The problem is simply that it's quite hard to keep someone enthusiastic about a gamemode they can't play (properly) for the duration of 8 weeks. The question never was whether you can transfer for free, but under which circumstances it should be free and instant and in my eyes getting new players into the gamemode is quite a good reason.8 weeks is the absolute maximum time they would have to wait, it's far more likely the season would be in progress before they evinced an interest. They can try the game mode out on any world for 1-8 weeks and then join you at the end of that period. If they would rather just quit the game and not bother than take that option, then I don't see any reason for the devs to make changes to accommodate them. Realistically, how many people, as a % of wvwers overall, would this really cause to quit the game?